La digestión anaerobia como alternativa de tratamiento a los residuos sólidos orgánicos generados en los mercados municipales

Revista Internacional de Contaminacion Ambiental (Impact Factor: 0.18). 01/2000; 16(1).
Source: DOAJ


Los residuos sólidos generados en los mercados municipales y tianguis, por lo general se manejan y disponen mezclados con el resto de los residuos municipales, aumentando con ello el problema de contaminación ambiental, a pesar de que aquéllos son una fuente potencial rica en materia orgánica. Esta investigación se realizó con el objeto de experimentar la eficiencia de la digestión anaerobia para tratar los residuos orgánicos generados en estos sitios. Se efectuaron determinaciones físicas y químicas, cuyos resultados sugieren que este tipo de fermentación es eficiente para tratar estos residuos, por su alto contenido de humedad, el carácter ácido y la consistencia fibrosa del material. El proceso se evaluó a nivel de laboratorio en un digestor anaerobio de tipo hindú en el cual se determinó un tiempo de retención óptimo de 7 días para la digestión de la materia orgánica.

Download full-text


Available from: Silke Cram,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are different sources for the generation of solid waste, and marketplaces are considered one of them. Fruit and vegetable waste (FV) from a marketplace in Colombia was quantitatively and nutritionally characterized to contribute to its use in bovine feeding and to contribute minimizing its environmental impact. The evaluation was carried out 7 days per week during 4 periods of the year. FV was grouped by cluster analysis using SAS(®) 2006. FV was composed of 43% fruit, 30% vegetables and 27% stems, leaves, leaf wrappers, corncobs, roots, refuse and others. FV was defined in four main groups. On average, FV contained 10% crude protein (CP), 36.6% neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 29.6% acid detergent fiber (ADF), 87.8% ruminal degradability at 24 h, 3657 kcal/kg, 0.59% calcium (Ca(+2)), and 0.21% phosphorous (P). There were no statistical differences between days or between periods of evaluation (p > 0.05) for CP or for Ca(+2). As for NDF and ADF, there were statistically significant differences between periods but not between days. The microbiological parameters only increased when the humidity was up to 12%. FV represents a potential feedstuff for bovine feeding, and its recycling could avoid the discharge of a large amount of waste to landfills, which would minimize its environmental impact.
    Journal of Environmental Management 01/2011; 95 Suppl:S203-9. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.022 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Organic waste from markets represents about 10-20% of the total waste of a city. A large proportion comes from the overproduction of fruit and vegetables, turning them into potential pollutant. The nutritional value found for fruit and vegetable waste (FV) from a marketplace, in a previous work, showed that this product might be considered as a potential alternative for animal feeding. This study evaluated the use of FV as feedstuff for diets of lactating Holstein cows with an emphasis on milk yield and quality. FV was included in 0, 6, 8, 12, and 18% of the concentrate. A 4 x 4 Latin squares model was used to analyze data (4 animal groups, 4 periods of evaluation, and 4 treatments). No statistical differences in milk yield per kilogram of eaten concentrate or concentrate intake were recorded between groups fed FV and the control group. There was a significant effect of the treatment on cis-9,trans-11 CLA and α-linolenic acid content in milk. These results showed that FV can be used as a dietary ingredient for high-yield lactating cows without detriment in the milk yield and with improvement in the milk quality. FV could be included at proportions of between 6% and 18% in the concentrate, as long as the animal's dietary requirements are covered. The main impact of these results is the alternative generated for the improvement of the environment.
    Journal of Environmental Management 07/2011; 95 Suppl:S210-4. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.050 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Environmental Biotechnology and Engeneering, Edited by CINVESTAV, 11/2014: chapter 6.4: pages 590 - 600; , ISBN: 978-607-9023-29-4